Misplaced Pages

User talk:JBW: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:33, 20 December 2024 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers495,267 edits →Expired rangeblock needs renewal: thx← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:54, 11 January 2025 edit undoJBW (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators195,998 edits →Partial block request: blocks extended 
(35 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
{{archive box | auto=yes }} {{archive box | auto=yes }}


== Trinetix draft ==


Thank you for reviewing our draft. Could you please clarify which sections or elements need improvement to align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines? We’re committed to ensuring the content is neutral, verifiable, and meets Misplaced Pages’s standards.
== Attempt to use Misplaced Pages to publicise a paper==


Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ] (]) 13:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I read your comments. I have not made any edits concerning the conjecture. I asked Eppstein what method he wanted me to use where he might consider changing his decision if presented with facts. Plus, I am not promoting anything. I am challenging the decision to exclude any information from any paper published by TMA. No content has been edited into a page or removed from a page concerning the conjecture. Everybody has the right to challenge a decision by an editor by using the dispute resolution methods outlined by Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
: {{ping|ISTCC}} You have said ''"I have been working on the Collatz Conjecture for about 3 years. After I got my work published in a peer-reviewed journal, I wanted my findings included in the wiki page. I did not have an account and did not want to get that involved in the process. I had read that before making any major edits, it was best to post them on the“talk” page and get a consensus. I posted my proposed edits on the talk page and asked for comments both pro and con. I gave the information to download the paper so everybody could read it before discussing the exact wording of the edits."'' That is an unambiguous statement that you are trying to use Misplaced Pages to publicise your "proof". To claim otherwise is disingenuous. Your attempt to get the journal in which you have published it accepted as a reliable source is intended to enable you to use it to justify posting mention of it in a Misplaced Pages article. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. You also posted an extensive amount of text to ] advocating for including content about your paper in the article. Your editing history is visible to amyone who chooses to look at it, and ''"No content has been edited into a page or removed from a page concerning the conjecture"'' is visibly not true. As for your comment about having ''"the right to challenge a decision by an editor"'', I have no idea why you mentioned that, since nothing I wrote to you has anything to do with that. ] (]) 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


:{{tpw}} {{yo| LemmaMe}} I'm afraid accounts are not to be shared. Please see ]. Thanks, ] (]) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
== Pakistani IPs disrupting animation articles ==
::I'm guessing "we" is their company, they declared a COI(though not PAID as they probably need to). ] (]) 14:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Thanks for noticing. It's my own account and I revealed a conflict of interests in my account, it's a routine habit to use "we" at work, so sorry for the typo. ] (]) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


: {{ping|LemmaMe}} It's not a question of some "sections or elements", it's a question of the whole tone and character of the draft, from start to finish. In this situation I used to try to pick out a few examples of promotional phrasing, to illustrate the point, but I found that never worked, as the person in question always took the examples I quoted as being the bits which needed changing, not as illustrative examples of the general character of the writing. Eventually, following discussions with some relevant people, I came to realise that people who work in marketing/advertising/PR get so used to reading and writing promotional material day after day, year after year, that they become desensitised to it, and honestly cannot see the promotional tone in writing which looks promotional to other people. I suggest that you reread what you wrote, looking for anything in the wording which might look like marketing language. If you can see it, great, but if you can't, then I honestly don't think that I can convey it to you. ] (]) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, JB; please find a range which covers these v4s and block them.
::Hi! Thank you for the reply. I understand you and will prepare a new draft in a neutral tone. Appreciate your help. ] (]) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)


== Administrators' newsletter – January 2025 ==
:<br>
:<br>
:<br>
:<br>


] from the past month (December 2024).
&nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 15:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} {{Done}}, though at first I thought it wouldn't be possible, as the range required is 182.178.0.0/17, which is usually too big to block because of the amount of collateral damage. However, when I checked the editing history, I was astonished. I have rarely seen so large an IP range full of so much unconstructive editing and so little constructive editing, so I decided blocking was reasonable. ] (]) 17:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, and &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not that school, listed as no longer being active, but perhaps other schools. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 17:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} Yes, of course. I should have thought of that. Instead of "I have rarely seen so large an IP range full of so much unconstructive editing and so little constructive editing" I should have said "I have rarely seen so large an IP range full of so much unconstructive editing and so little constructive editing ''unless it's a school range''". In some countries it's easy to determine that a whole IP range is allocated to a school system, but in other countries they just show up under the ISP which supplies them to the school district, and this is probably an example of that. ] (]) 17:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


<div style="display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap">
== Seems I came across another low ratio school range ==
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">


] '''Administrator changes'''
has hardly any edits for the typical summer vacation months of July & August with plenty of disruption the rest of the year. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 19:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:] ]
: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} Hmm. 🤔 That's not the way it looks to me. In the 346 days so far in 2024 there have been 31 edits, which works out as an average of 2.7 per month. In August there were 2 edits, which is not significantly different from that average. In 2023 there were actually more edits in August (13) than any other month except March (19), and almost twice as many as the average per month (6.7). ] (]) 20:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:] {{hlist|class=inline
: OK, when I wrote that I forgot to check July as well as August. July does look rather different, with respectively 0, 1, 2, & 0 edits in July 2024, 2023, 2022, & 2021, so you may have a point there, but the statistics on August editing must cast some doubt on it. Can you say more precisely when school summer vacations typically run in the USA? In England they cover the whole of August but only part of July, so one would expect more editing from a school in July than in August, which is the opposite to what has happened here. ] (]) 21:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
|]
::Varies depending on the school district. Used to be mid-June to Labor Day but there are now some which start mid-August instead and there are certain schools open limited hours for summer education. That would be for students looking for a head start on the next year or to make up for a failing grade during the previous year. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 21:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
|]
:: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} OK, thanks. That makes it seem plausible that it might be just in July when there would be virtually no editing. What I saw looking at the editing history did look consistent with school editing. However, averaging out at just a few edits per month probably doesn't justify a long term block, especially since there have been some constructive edits. (I've just noticed that above I said that August 2024 had 2 edits, which was not significantly different from the average of 2.7 edits per day for the year to date, but I meant 2.7 per month. Obviously 2 in a month would have been very significantly different from an average of 2.7 per day.) I think I'll put a short block on just the single IP address responsible for the latest editing. ] (]) 22:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
}}
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}


] '''CheckUser changes'''
== Odd Sockpuppet Tag ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]
:] ]


</div>
I was looking at information relating to the banned LTA ] and I saw that you tagged ] as this user. Considering that account dates from 2005 and seemed to be a legitimate (albeit blocked) doppleganger used by ] before he went rogue, I was wondering how you came to that conclusion. Royer2356 did not start vandalizing until 2012, which was 7 years after the fact. I was thinking of removing the tag, but wanted to solicit feedback/perspective from you before doing so just in case there was some other reasoning I wasn't aware about. --] (]) 08:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
<div style="flex: 1 0 20em">
: {{ping|Thebirdlover}} After 6 years I have no memory of why I did that, and looking over the history of the various accounts I can't find any good reason, so I have blanked the page. ] (]) 10:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
]
:: Thank you for doing so. --] (]) 15:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


] '''Oversight changes'''
== Second opinion requested ==
:] {{hlist|class=inline
|]
|]
|]
|]
|]
}}
:] ]


</div>
&nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 22:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
</div>
: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} Yes, {{U|HJ Mitchell}} is perfectly right; I see no reason to doubt that the editor believes that what they have been doing is improving articles, so it is not vandalism. However, vandalism or not, the editing is unacceptable, so I have blocked the /64 range. I find cases like this frustrating, because what we are dealing with is an editor who would long ago have been blocked, very likely indefinitely, had they been using an account, but because they are using IP editing, and especially because they are using an IPv6 range, they get away with it for years on end. It happens all the time. (The first warnings to this IP range were in July 2021.) ] (]) 22:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::I wonder if there is a blocked account somewhere and this is a drawer of LOUTSOCKs. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 22:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} Could be. ] (]) 22:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I considered a disruptive editing block but I went back to September and couldn't find any evidence that anyone had actually explained what the problem is. That should always, always be the first step. And @Skywatcher68 no, MoS violations are not vandalism. I strongly suggest you read ] before you make any more AIV reports. You'll find experienced editors who don't lnow about MOS:DATE so why would an IP? ] &#124; ] 23:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


] '''Guideline and policy news'''
== Disruptive Pakistani IP apparently hopped ranges ==
* Following ], ] was adopted as a ].
* A ] is open to discuss whether admins should be advised to warn users rather than issue no-warning blocks to those who have posted promotional content outside of article space.
] '''Technical news'''
* The Nuke feature also now ] to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.


] '''Arbitration'''
is exhibiting the same behavior. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 16:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
* Following the ], the following editors have been elected to the Arbitration Committee: {{noping|CaptainEek}}, {{noping|Daniel}}, {{noping|Elli}}, {{noping|KrakatoaKatie}}, {{noping|Liz}}, {{noping|Primefac}}, {{noping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, {{noping|Theleekycauldron}}, {{noping|Worm That Turned}}.
: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} This is one of those really kind and helpful block-evading editors, who do their best to make what they are doing as blindingly obvious as they can, by various clever little tricks such as making every one of their edits on pages previously edited by the blocked editor (apart from one talk page edit back in July). If I were evading a block I don't think I would do that. ] (]) 21:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


] '''Miscellaneous'''
== Expired rangeblock needs renewal ==
* A ] is happening in January 2025 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the ]. ]


----
Our uncommunicative friend at ] has begun his disruption again after a year-long block expired. ] (]) 01:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
{{center|{{flatlist|
: Thanks for letting me know, {{u|Binksternet}}. I've blocked again for three years. I've also included in the block rationale a link to a talk page where I've posted a fairly long message about the background to the block. As you no doubt know, it can be very difficult to be sure that an editor using IPv6 addresses sees talk page messages, and while it's certain that this editor has seen at least the block rationales, it is possible that they have seen few, or even none, of the talk page messages.
* ]
: I've already thanked you for alerting me to this, and told you that I have acted on what you said. Nevertheless, I should like to mention that I don't like the way that you posted a series of templated warning messages at escalating levels on the latest talk page, without any further edits between those messages. I don't know what your reason for doing that was, but it doesn't seem constructive. I also don't see it as at all necessary; for an editor with such an extensive history of warnings and blocks it seems pointless to do anything less than tell them right away that they are likely to be blocked again immediately. (In that case it's a good idea to briefly mention the history of range blocks, not for the benefit of the problematic editor, but for the benefit of any administrator reviewing the case. I don't know how many times I've seen a perfectly good report at AIV declined by an administrator who checked only the history of the single IPv6 address reported, not the range.) ] (]) 12:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* ]
::Thanks for the action and the advice. ] (]) 15:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* ]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by ] (]) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1266956718 -->

== Likely back again ==

] is acting like ] ] (]) 08:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:Have not notified as some of recent edits outside regional context and perhaps in area of another terminology disagreement that I am certainly not going to be involved in but rest of pattern similar. ] (]) 09:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:: {{ping|ChaseKiwi}} Thanks for drawing my attention to this. See my comment at ]. As for notifying the editor, I think it's likely to be better not to. ] (]) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Ta, but why once confirmed did you not totally revert on principle the edits to ]. As said, not an area I will get involved in, due to minor PoV, but the truly constructive editing was in my view, which I do not wish to impose on others, limited. ] (]) 01:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:::: {{ping|ChaseKiwi}} I thought I had done that, but evidently I edited the wrong version from the history of the article. I've done it now. ] (]) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

== Another helpful block evader? ==

&ndash; is there a 1.0 somewhere? &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} As you can see and , there are many accounts with names beginning with "Grahamcracker" or variations on it. Most of them are old accounts created years ago which have never edited, and as far as I saw was the only edit more recent than 2018, until Grahamcrackers 2.0 came along. I don't see any reason to connect any of them to the new account. ] (]) 19:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

: ...and are a couple more. ] (]) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

== Partial block request ==

JB, please block from editing ]. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Skywatcher68}} {{Done}}. Looking at the other edits from that IP address, I'm not sure a total block wouldn't be better, but obviously the lion's share of the problematic editing is on that article, so we may as well just block that one article and warn about a possible block on others if necessary. Let's hope that's enough to get the message across. ] (]) 15:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

and are still doing the same thing. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 15:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Skywatcher68}} I've totally blocked the account for 2 weeks, and I've added 2 months to the IP block, and made it cover editing from an account, rather than being anon-only. I'll happily extend either or both blocks if need be; this is one of the situations where collateral damage from an IP bock isn't a concern. ] (]) 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

== Another partial block request ==

Please block from editing ] and ]. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
: {{ping|Skywatcher68}} {{Not done}}. Absolutely out of the question. The editing history of the IP range makes it abundantly clear that, although that school article is the main target, there's plenty of vandalism on other pages too, so a total block is needed. I also see that the range has previously been blocked several times for short periods, without any impact, so I've gone for two years. ] (]) 21:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
::Had a feeling you would need to do that instead. &nbsp; &ndash;] (]) 21:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:54, 11 January 2025

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84


This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Trinetix draft

Thank you for reviewing our draft. Could you please clarify which sections or elements need improvement to align with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines? We’re committed to ensuring the content is neutral, verifiable, and meets Misplaced Pages’s standards.

Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. LemmaMe (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @LemmaMe: I'm afraid accounts are not to be shared. Please see WP:NOSHARE. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm guessing "we" is their company, they declared a COI(though not PAID as they probably need to). 331dot (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. It's my own account and I revealed a conflict of interests in my account, it's a routine habit to use "we" at work, so sorry for the typo. LemmaMe (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@LemmaMe: It's not a question of some "sections or elements", it's a question of the whole tone and character of the draft, from start to finish. In this situation I used to try to pick out a few examples of promotional phrasing, to illustrate the point, but I found that never worked, as the person in question always took the examples I quoted as being the bits which needed changing, not as illustrative examples of the general character of the writing. Eventually, following discussions with some relevant people, I came to realise that people who work in marketing/advertising/PR get so used to reading and writing promotional material day after day, year after year, that they become desensitised to it, and honestly cannot see the promotional tone in writing which looks promotional to other people. I suggest that you reread what you wrote, looking for anything in the wording which might look like marketing language. If you can see it, great, but if you can't, then I honestly don't think that I can convey it to you. JBW (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for the reply. I understand you and will prepare a new draft in a neutral tone. Appreciate your help. LemmaMe (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2025

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2024).

Administrator changes

added Sennecaster
readded
removed

CheckUser changes

added
readded Worm That Turned
removed Ferret

Oversight changes

added
readded Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Nuke feature also now provides links to the userpage of the user whose pages were deleted, and to the pages which were not selected for deletion, after page deletions are queued. This enables easier follow-up admin-actions.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Likely back again

user:Dudsboer is acting like User:Prince Of Roblox ChaseKiwi (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Have not notified as some of recent edits outside regional context and perhaps in area of another terminology disagreement that I am certainly not going to be involved in but rest of pattern similar. ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@ChaseKiwi: Thanks for drawing my attention to this. See my comment at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince Of Roblox. As for notifying the editor, I think it's likely to be better not to. JBW (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ta, but why once confirmed did you not totally revert on principle the edits to Scotch-Irish Americans. As said, not an area I will get involved in, due to minor PoV, but the truly constructive editing was in my view, which I do not wish to impose on others, limited. ChaseKiwi (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@ChaseKiwi: I thought I had done that, but evidently I edited the wrong version from the history of the article. I've done it now. JBW (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Another helpful block evader?

Grahamcrackers 2.0 – is there a 1.0 somewhere?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: As you can see here and here, there are many accounts with names beginning with "Grahamcracker" or variations on it. Most of them are old accounts created years ago which have never edited, and as far as I saw this was the only edit more recent than 2018, until Grahamcrackers 2.0 came along. I don't see any reason to connect any of them to the new account. JBW (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
...and here are a couple more. JBW (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Partial block request

JB, please block 45.183.73.43 from editing 2002 Tampa Cessna 172 crash.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68:  Done. Looking at the other edits from that IP address, I'm not sure a total block wouldn't be better, but obviously the lion's share of the problematic editing is on that article, so we may as well just block that one article and warn about a possible block on others if necessary. Let's hope that's enough to get the message across. JBW (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Seems they've registered and are still doing the same thing.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've totally blocked the account for 2 weeks, and I've added 2 months to the IP block, and made it cover editing from an account, rather than being anon-only. I'll happily extend either or both blocks if need be; this is one of the situations where collateral damage from an IP bock isn't a concern. JBW (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Another partial block request

Please block 2A02:C7C:D941:5A00:0:0:0:0/64 from editing Studio West (school) and Kenton School.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68:  Not done. Absolutely out of the question. The editing history of the IP range makes it abundantly clear that, although that school article is the main target, there's plenty of vandalism on other pages too, so a total block is needed. I also see that the range has previously been blocked several times for short periods, without any impact, so I've gone for two years. JBW (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Had a feeling you would need to do that instead.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)